Article 345 of the Constitution of India: State Official Languages

Article 345 of the Constitution of India: A Scholarly Analysis of State Official Language Provisions

Introduction

The Constitution of India, in Part XVII, meticulously outlines the provisions concerning official language, reflecting the nation's profound linguistic diversity. Within this framework, Article 345 holds a pivotal position, empowering the Legislature of a State to adopt one or more languages in use within that State, or Hindi, as the language(s) for its official purposes. This provision is fundamental to India's federal structure, allowing States to determine their administrative and official linguistic policies in consonance with regional linguistic identities and needs. This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of Article 345, examining its constitutional contours, judicial interpretations, and practical application, drawing significantly from relevant case law and statutory principles.

The Constitutional Text and Scheme of Article 345

Article 345 of the Constitution of India reads as follows:

"345. Official language or languages of a State.— Subject to the provisions of Articles 346 and 347, the Legislature of a State may by law adopt any one or more of the languages in use in the State or Hindi as the language or languages to be used for all or any of the official purposes of that State: Provided that, until the Legislature of the State otherwise provides by law, the English language shall continue to be used for those official purposes within the State for which it was being used immediately before the commencement of this Constitution."

Several key elements emerge from this text:

  • State Legislative Power: The primary authority to choose official languages rests with the State Legislature. This choice must be enacted "by law."
  • Choice of Languages: A State can adopt:
    • Any one or more languages already "in use in the State."
    • Hindi, irrespective of its prevalent use in the State. This reflects a broader constitutional inclination towards promoting Hindi, as also indicated in Article 351.
  • Scope: The adopted language(s) can be for "all or any of the official purposes of that State," allowing for flexibility.
  • Supremacy Clause (Limited): The power is "subject to the provisions of Articles 346 and 347." Article 346 deals with the official language for communication between States and between a State and the Union. Article 347 empowers the President to direct the recognition of a language in a State for specified official purposes if a substantial proportion of the population desires it.
  • Proviso for English: Crucially, the English language continues for official purposes for which it was used pre-Constitution, until the State Legislature "otherwise provides by law." This implies a specific legislative act is needed to discontinue English for those purposes.

Article 345 is situated in Chapter II of Part XVII, titled "Regional Languages," underscoring its role in accommodating regional linguistic aspirations within the constitutional framework.

Judicial Interpretation of Article 345: Key Principles from Case Law

The judiciary has played a significant role in clarifying the scope and application of Article 345. Several landmark judgments have elucidated its various facets.

Legislative Discretion and Plurality of Languages

The phrase "may by law adopt" grants considerable discretion to the State Legislature. The Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh Hindi Sahitya Sammelan v. State Of Uttar Pradesh (2014 SCC 2 671) (Ref 8) clarified that the use of the word "may" in Article 345 is significant, indicating that the State has discretion in adopting language(s). The Court noted, "The position that Hindi has been mentioned separately in Article 345 in the context of the preceding expression 'adopt any one or more of the languages in use in the State' is to promote and spread Hindi in terms of Article 351 though it may not be spoken or used by the people in the State." (Ref 8). This affirms the State's power to adopt Hindi even if it's not widely used, alongside other languages in use.

The power to adopt "any one or more" languages has been affirmed in practice and by courts. For instance, in L.M. Wakhare v. State (1953 SCC ONLINE MP 3) (Ref 4, 11), the Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the Madhya Pradesh Official Language Act, 1950, which adopted both Hindi and Marathi as official languages, as both were in use in the State. The Court reasoned, "In this view, the State Legislature of Madhya Pradesh was entitled to adopt both Hindi and Marathi as the official languages since both of them are in use in the State." (Ref 4).

Furthermore, the power under Article 345 is not exhausted by a single exercise. The Rajasthan High Court in Jai Singh v. State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary (2019) (Ref 6), invoking Section 14 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (made applicable to Constitutional interpretation by Article 367), held that "the State Legislature may exercise its power under Article 345 from time to time as occasion requires." This means a State can amend its official language policy as circumstances evolve.

The Proviso: Continued Use of English

The proviso to Article 345 ensures a smooth transition by allowing the continued use of English for official purposes for which it was used prior to the Constitution's commencement, until the State Legislature explicitly legislates otherwise. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in L.M. Wakhare v. State (Ref 4, 11) acknowledged this proviso.

The Madras High Court in M.N. Ravichandran v. Union Of India Uoi (1987) (Ref 12), citing Dayabhai v. Matharlal, observed that "even after the adoption by the State of any of the regional language or Hindi as the official language, the English language can continue to be used for those official purposes within the State for which it was being used immediately before the commencement of the Constitution, until the Legislature of the State otherwise provides by law. In other words, such a legislation must expressly exclude the use of English." This interpretation was echoed by the Karnataka High Court in Sahyadri Education Trust v. State Of Karnataka (1988 SCC ONLINE KAR 233) (Ref 17), which stated, "the effect of the proviso to Article 345 of the Constitution is that even after the adoption by the State of any of the regional languages or Hindi as the official language, the English language can continue to be used... until the Legislature of the State otherwise provides by law." The Court further clarified that a State Official Language Act merely adopting a regional language does not automatically bar English for purposes covered by the proviso unless it explicitly does so.

Relationship with Articles 346, 347, and 351

Article 345 begins with the phrase "Subject to the provisions of Articles 346 and 347." The Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh Hindi Sahitya Sammelan v. State Of Uttar Pradesh (Ref 8) provided a crucial interpretation of this phrase. The Court held that this expression "does not make Article 345 subordinate to Articles 346 and 347." Instead, "the effect of the expression 'subject to …' is that any law made by the legislature of the State is subject to directions existing, if any, issued by the President under Article 347 when the State Legislature exercises its power under Article 345. Once the direction is issued by the President under Article 347, it is not open to the State Legislature to tinker with such direction in any manner." (Ref 8). Thus, the plenary power of the State under Article 345 is limited only to the extent that it must not conflict with Presidential directives under Article 347.

The Court in Uttar Pradesh Hindi Sahitya Sammelan (Ref 8) also highlighted the connection with Article 351 (Directive for development of the Hindi language), stating that the specific mention of Hindi in Article 345 facilitates its promotion as envisaged by Article 351.

Defining "Official Purposes" and Scope of Application

The term "official purposes" is broad. In M. Ranka v. State Of Tamil Nadu (1994) (Ref 10), one of the contentions raised before the Madras High Court was that the expression "official purpose' found in Article 345 of the Constitution would not include "judicial proceedings before the subordinate courts". While the judgment summary does not provide the court's final view on this specific point, it indicates that the scope of "official purposes" can be a subject of legal challenge.

However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in L.M. Wakhare v. State (Ref 4, 11) dealt with a petition mainly directed against the use of Hindi and Marathi as official languages of the Courts. The Court examined the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and Civil Procedure Code regarding court language, implying that "official purposes" under Article 345, as implemented by the State's Official Language Act, could extend to court proceedings, subject to other specific laws governing court procedures. The notification challenged in L.M. Wakhare prescribed languages for official purposes, including court work, based on the Madhya Pradesh Official Language Act, 1950, enacted under Article 345.

Implementation through State Legislation and Resultant Issues

States have exercised their powers under Article 345 by enacting Official Language Acts. For example, the Madhya Pradesh Official Language Act, 1950, was passed by the State Legislature by virtue of powers under Article 345 (L.M. Wakhare v. State, Ref 4, 11). These Acts specify the official language(s) and the purposes for which they are to be used.

An important issue arising from the adoption of regional languages or Hindi as official languages is the determination of the authoritative text of laws and notifications, especially when published in multiple languages. In Madhya Pradesh, after the enactment of the Madhya Pradesh Official Languages Act, 1957 (which made Hindi the official language for most purposes), the judiciary has held that the Hindi version of statutes and notifications should be preferred in case of ambiguity or doubt. This was affirmed by the Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mangilal v. Board of Revenue, M.P. (1983 MPLJ 254), which considered Article 345 and the State's Official Language Act. This principle was reiterated in Technofab Engineering Ltd. v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (2015 SCC ONLINE MP 6744) (Ref 15, 19) and Chief Municipal Officer v. Hindustan Copper Ltd. (2018 SCC ONLINE MP 1009) (Ref 14, 20). The Allahabad High Court in Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Presiding Officer (1961 SCC ONLINE ALL 135) (Ref 16) also dealt with the question of which version (Hindi or English) of a notification was authoritative, considering the provisions of Part XVII of the Constitution, including Article 345.

The application of State Official Language Acts extends to various state instrumentalities. For instance, in STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI v. SHRI ATUL CHANDRAKANT TAWADE (2010) (Ref 21), the issue involved the language of proceedings in District Consumer Forums in Maharashtra, with arguments relying on Article 345, the Maharashtra Official Languages Act, 1964, and relevant notifications concerning the language of subordinate courts.

Broader Context: Article 345 within India's Language Policy

Article 345 is a crucial component of India's intricate language policy, which seeks to balance the linguistic diversity of its populace with the need for administrative coherence and national unity. While Article 343 establishes Hindi as the official language of the Union (with English continuing for a specified period and beyond, as per legislation), Article 345 provides autonomy to the States.

The option for States to adopt Hindi under Article 345, even if not widely spoken, aligns with the directive in Article 351 for the Union to promote the spread of the Hindi language. The Supreme Court's decision in Union Of India And Others v. Murasoli Maran (1977 SCC 2 416) (Ref 3), while primarily concerning the Union's language policy and the Official Languages Act, 1963, upheld measures for promoting Hindi among Central Government employees. This case underscores the constitutional thrust towards Hindi's progressive use, a sentiment that finds an echo in the options available to States under Article 345. However, Article 345 primarily champions linguistic federalism by empowering States to choose languages reflective of their regional demographics and cultural heritage.

Conclusion

Article 345 of the Constitution of India serves as a cornerstone of linguistic federalism in the country. It endows State Legislatures with the autonomy to select official languages, thereby acknowledging and respecting regional linguistic identities. The judiciary, through various pronouncements, has clarified the discretionary nature of this power, the conditions for the continued use of English, and the relationship of Article 345 with other constitutional provisions concerning language. The implementation of this article through State Official Language Acts has led to practical questions, particularly regarding the language of courts and the authoritative texts of laws, which have been addressed by the courts on a case-by-case basis. Ultimately, Article 345 facilitates a delicate balance, allowing States to foster their languages while also providing an avenue for the promotion of Hindi and ensuring continuity through the English language, reflecting the complex and pluralistic linguistic fabric of India.